UK Labor Party Witch Hunt: “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been Anti-Zionist?”

Sen. Joe McCarthy with the infamous Roy Cohn: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

The UK Tory press and the Israel Lobby have lit a match under the Labor Party, which is led by its left-wing leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Rump forces within the Party who oppose his left-wing agenda have poured gasoline on the flames. They’ve collaborated in an effort to sabotage his leadership, commencing a witch-hunt that identifies progressive Labor Party activists, and even elected officials, as anti-Semites. In order to “get there,” they must transform comments that are anti-Zionist into outright anti-Semitism. Labor’s Torquemada’s have been eager to make that fatal leap into the ideological abyss. More on this later in this post.

[MP Naz] Shah said Israel should “relocate to the US” and posted an article that likened Zionism to al-Qaida.

She shared a picture of Israel’s outline superimposed on to a map of the US under the headline: “Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States,” along with the comment: “Problem solved.”

The post went on to say Americans would “welcome Israelis with open arms”, and the relocation would bring peace to the Middle East by ending “foreign interference”. The post suggested the US had “plenty of land” to accommodate Israel as a 51st state, allowing Palestinians to “get their life and their land back”.

Livingstone’s infraction was this:

During his interview, Livingstone said Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews” and claimed there was a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israel policy as antisemitic.”

At least in the McCarthy era you might get a hearing before being branded a Communist. You’d have an opportunity to defend yourself or rebut the charges. In the current Labor Party, you can be suspended without a hearing and without even knowing what your infraction was. That’s true in Livingstone’s case.

One of the worst aspects of this travesty is the willing collaboration of the so-called liberal press. Leading the charge against the Labor left isn’t just the Telegraph (aka Torygraph) and other usual subjects. Rather, the Guardian is leading the pack of baying hounds seeking the tail of the anti-Zionist foxes. In its latest headline regarding the Livingstone controversy it calls his comments “offensive.” Excuse me, but I thought a newspaper reporting the news allowed the facts of the story to speak for themselves and didn’t intrude the reporter’s moral recriminations into the reporting.

Haaretz has joined the fray, publishing a false, malevolent smear of Livingstone penned by one of the UK Israel Lobby’s chief executioners, Alan Johnson. He is a BICOM enforcer. Haaretz, you remember is the flower of Israeli liberalism. It stands for all the best values of democracy, tolerance, and humanism. Except when it comes to those who pose a threat to its own brand of liberal Zionism. Then the newspaper bares its fangs and bites deeply into the flesh of its victims. Not so humane. Not so tolerant.

In reviewing these two comments, I begin by saying both are intemperate, vituperative and even over the top. They overstate a case that can and should be made in a more sober fashion. One of my main problems with both comments is that they conflate Zionism with Israel. I understand why critics do this, and the State of Israel itself encourages people to see Israel as a stand-in for both Zionism and world Jewry, which it isn’t. Zionism, like any nationalist ideology or religion, has various strains. Some are extremist and violent. Some are liberal. And some are radical (progressive). Opponents of Zionism are correct in noting that the current iteration of Zionism as reflected in the ideology of the Israeli government is identified with the most virulent, intolerant and even murderous elements within the Zionist tradition.

But it would be as much a mistake to argue that Donald Trump represents the current values of America or is America, as it is that Zionism is one giant evil genocidal belief system.

Arguments against Israel or Israeli policy should be submitted to the proper address and that is the Israeli government. This sort of articulation of criticism is more precise and less prone to sloganeering or overheated rhetoric.

On the other hand, it’s important to note that when understood in proper context, neither of these comments by Shah or Livingstone is far off the mark. Let’s begin with Shah: is it offensive to suggest that Israel should be America’s 51st state? Even American liberal Zionists and Israelis themselves offer this satirical reflection as mordant criticism of Israel’s over-reliance on U.S. largess, weapons stocks, and political power.

What about likening the current policies of the Israeli government to Al Qaeda? How many of the Labor Party interrogators know that Israel has made an alliance with the Al Qaeda affiliate, al Nusra, in Syria? How many of them know of the racist laws enacted by the Israeli Knesset, which ratify not just Arabophobia and Islamophobia, but also trample democratic values underfoot? How many understand the level to which the State has become hostage to Jewish religious extremism, whether it’s espoused by rabbis or cabinet ministers?

There are those who use the hashtag #JSIL, to dramatize Israel’s current status as a racist theocratic state. One might argue that the term is over-dramatic, since Israel hasn’t yet taken to cutting off the heads of Arabs and displaying them on pikes as ISIS does. But given that the social media platform is like a dramatic stage, I don’t find the terms inappropriate. Twitter isn’t a PhD treatise nor a legal proceeding. It’s a place where people argue and use dramatic tropes and language.

What else is offensive in Shah’s Facebook post? That Israel brings ‘foreign interference’ to the region? How can anyone deny the truth of this? Israel’s virtually sole ally is the strongest superpower in the world. We provide Israel with the most advanced, lethal weaponry in the world. When Israel is fighting a war and runs low on ammunition, who restocks Israel’s weapons armories?

But let’s be frank, we aren’t the only foreign power putting out noses into the region. Such interference goes back a century or more to the European colonial powers who divvied up the spoils of the region amongst themselves. Today, Russian, Iran, the U.S., and even nations within the region like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have intervened in various conflicts like Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen. So let’s not ignore the intervention and damage done by others in the region. But let’s also not forget that as the most powerful nation on earth, the U.S. does far more damage here than any other power (viz, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan).

The Labor Party Zio-Thought Police will also not like the inference in Shah’s statement that Israeli Jews should leave the region. It smacks too much of ethnic cleansing or even those long ago claims of Arab strongmen that they would “drive the Zionists into the sea.”

But to be true to history (which this witch-hunt entirely ignores), the Zionist leadership from Ben Gurion onward has embraced ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants, as I wrote in a new article published at Mint Press today. The Nakba, in which nearly 1-million Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, was the result of official Zionist policy. Ethnic cleansing is thus a two-way street.

Adolf Eichmann visiting Palestine on fact-finding trip, 1937.

Now let’s turn to Livingstone’s comments: it is overstated to say that “Hitler supported Zionism.” He didn’t support Zionism in the sense that a Trump voter supports Donald Trump; or a Labor voter supports its MK candidates. But Hitler saw Zionism, up until the onset of World War II, as a useful tool to realize his goal of ridding Europe of Jews. Before he adopted the policy of genocide in 1942, the Nazi approach (at least through 1939) was to encourage Jews to emigrate. Though Adolf Eichmann is known as the official who implemented the Final Solution, he had an entirely different approach before the War. He even visited Palestine on a fact-finding trip in 1937.

It was official Nazi policy to see Palestine as the answer to the problem of where to send the Jews after they left Europe. Both the rightist Irgun and the Yishuv leadership (which later became the Labor Party) negotiated deals with the Nazis. The most notorious and well-known of these is the Haavara Agreement, by which the lives of European Jews were ransomed in return for the Nazis confiscating their property and possessions and turning them into cash to support the growing war machine of the Third Reich.

It’s important to note (and Livingstone does so in his comment) that the Nazi approach of voluntary emigration didn’t last after the War began. By then, the Nazis wanted a surer and faster approach to the “problem” and they chose extermination.

Let’s return to the issue of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I addressed this subject in an American context in a recent piece I wrote for Mint Press. The key issue is that they are not the same thing. Nowhere near it. Anyone who attempts to turn anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism is committing a grave injustice that exploits the trauma of the Holocaust for political purposes. Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah, and Tony Greenstein, all suspended from the Party for such infractions, oppose Israel and its policies. None of them is an anti-Semite. Greenstein, in fact, has been a leading campaigner against anti-Semitism on the left. None has expressed hostility to Jews or Judaism. THAT is the true definition of anti-Semitism. If you wish to turn anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism then you are conflating Judaism with Zionism and Israel. They are not the same nor must progressive Jews allow them to become the same.

Finally, the main problem with the current Labor Party witch-hunt is that it makes a travesty of history. If you want to discipline party members, if you want to tarnish their careers and drive them out of politics forever, do so based on historical accuracy and truth. You remember Sen. Joe McCarthy’s claims there were 50, or 100 or 300 Communists working in the State Department? On what were these claims based? On real evidence? Or truthful claims? Or fabrications? History shows that in almost all cases (with a few rare exceptions) McCarthy was a liar and a braggart.

I ask the Labor Party to consider whether they want to go down this road. Do they want to do to their Party what Joe McCarthy did to America in the 1950s? I understand that there are right-wing Blairites who would be willing to stop at nothing to take their revenge on Corbyn. But in the process they may destroy the Party for decades to come as a viable political force for progressive values.

She was rightly suspended, and Ken Livingstone’s off topic remarks about Hitler and Zionism are just further proof , like Shah, he too is obsessed with Jews.

Why wouldn’t Corbyn seek to distance himself from these two embarrassing Labour Party member ‘pop offs’.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

Andy

Ken is perhaps, rather, obsessed with freedom and justice for the Palestinian people wherein Israel comes into for criticism. Israel which is largely Jews and a state run by Israeli Jews for Israeli Jews — and even Jews who wish to live there from countries like America, but who mostly retain the privilege of two country’s passports — not Israeli Arabs, who are, despite Israel touting itself as the only democracy in the Middle East, or indeed the Magreb, afflicted by at least 50 discriminatory laws. In the UK, we can tell how far the {AntiA = AntiZ} project has moved into what can at the mild end of criticism be called disrepute, exemplify by this report of The Great Pickle’s answer to anti-semitism: An article by Eric Pickles, former secretary of state for communities and local government, chair of the Conservative Friends of Israel and, since September 2015, UK special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, entitled ‘A definition of antisemitism’ introduced the government’s ‘Combating Anti-Semitism: a British best practice guide’ just before the announcement of a short Home Affairs Committee inquiry into anti-Semitism. And in it, anti-Semitism, traditionally defined simply as ‘hostility to or discrimination against Jews’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary) was replaced by an enormously long definition which not only includes attacks (physical or verbal) on Jewish people and community institutions but also ‘manifestations … target[ing] the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity’, such as: ‘denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour; applying double standards by requiring behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation … drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis …’ The links missing in this quote can be found in the article… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

Arie Brand

The suspension of Tony Greenstein shows clearly what these zealots are after: stifling critique of Israel under the guise of acting against anti-Semitism. One is amazed that this old ploy still seems to work.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

victor

There is one little detail missing from an excellent post: in the near future there are several elections in the UK. One of these is for the election of a new mayor for London. In a previous campaign Livingstone was heavily attacked by the Zionist Lobby and ended up losing the election.. This time the Labour candidate is a Muslim of Pakistani origin. The Conservatives have, already, been making Islamophobic innuendos against him. I think the leftist Labour leadership caught a “wobbly”.
Yes, the Blairite wing of the Party would be delighted if Labour lost the elections and, then, Corbyn would be blamed.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

Arie Brand

Imagine that at the time that apartheid-South Africa seemed to flourish Britain’s most liberal paper would have appointed an opinion editor who would have stated that his heart leapt up whenever he heard “Die Stem van Suid Afrika” or beheld the “Oranje,Blanje,Bleu” flag; who would have told us that the ethnic cleansing of the blacks was an unfortunate necessity so that the Afrikaners could live; who would have blithely related that he spent as much time as possible in the apartheid country and who would get out of his way to condemn critics of the place as suffering from vicious anti-Afrikanerism.

One of the agitators behind the present witch hunt against supposed anti-Semites (a witch hunt that has even touched the Father of the House, Sir Gerald Kaufman, because he had used the term “Jewish money”) seems to be Jonathan Freedland, opinion editor of the Guardian. If one replaces the term South Africa with Israel one does get a fair idea of his attitude toward that country, according to a long article by Blake Alcott about him (in Counterpunch).

Even though some anti-semites cleverly hide behind anti-Zionism, clearly the two are different things. Conflating the two is dishonest and a trick to squelch legitimate criticism.
I only wish that you would apply the same intellectual rigor and honesty to distinguish between legitimate discussion of Islamist issues from “Islamaphobia” or ‘Arabaphobia’.
The reason that liberals don’t do the latter, is that in progressive liberal ideology the concept of ‘other’ applies only to certain groups who are deemed to be disadvantaged or ‘challenged’; Muslims are in and Jews are out of this list.

If you think that claims about Jewish power and support for Israel are not anti-semitic, than discussion about Arab refugee’s attitudes towards jihadism or democracy is not Islamophobia.
Etc Etc

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

gornutne

@Yehuda = Agreed, so let’s apply the same intellectual rigor and honesty. Looking around me, most Arabs I know in the West are against (almost passionately) jihadism and pro-democracy. Most Jews I know in the West are Zionists and support the current Israeli government or subtle variants of the same. Of course it’s a small sample (though not insignificant) but the only one I have. And also of course, there are some very significant exceptions – this site’s owner for instance. But on the whole it seems to me that the jihadists are the exception in the Arab community in Western countries, and the anti-Zionists the exception in the Jewish community.

I only wish that you would apply the same intellectual rigor and honesty to distinguish between legitimate discussion of Islamist issues

First, there are thousands of sources which denounce intolerant versions of Islamism (like ISIS) when it is justified. Muslims themselves do so. The notion that the left gives a pass to Islamist fundamentalism is absolutely false. Not even Muslims give it a pass. You simply don’t know enough about the issue to know this. Which establishes how poorly informed you are.

Also, the level of support for jihadism and Islamist terrorism among Muslims is infinitesimal. Did you know this? Of course not. But I wonder why you didn’t.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

Yehuda

@Richard
I know what you know. I think Ari Shavit know as least as much as you. So does Benny Morris.
And herein lies the impossible trap in these kinds of political discussions-confirmation bias. I will bring sources to support my approach (and so will you). Then you will claim my sources are not credible (and I might do the same for yours). Even a simple fact, such as some action that Israel does, will be interpreted in opposite ways. For you, if Israel does something “bad”, it’s just more proof what an evil regime it is. If it does something “good” , its just misleading, propaganda and “hasbarah”, and promoting legitimacy to the Zionist regime. (Like your post about helping Gazans getting medical care, or the arrest of Jewish militants).

The underlying differences in our attitudes are philosophical, moral, and emotional. From there we just pile on the “facts” to prove it. We probably agree on 90%+ of the “facts”, we are both reasonably well informed. We have access to basically the same information But we differ greatly in the meaning.

Nonetheless I would like to find points of convergence.

So I propose, if you agree, rather than discussing this or that fact, we get to the heart of the disagreement– your underlying view of morality and how Israel fits into that (or doesn’t).

You mentioned that your attitudes are infused with Judaism as well. But you know as well as I, that classically, Judaism was very particularist, “tribal”, and very definitely not universalist. I personally sympathize with modern liberal streams of Judaism, but I would like to know what is uniquely “Jewish” (as opposed to humanist or liberal) about your program.

@ Yehuda: I know what you know. I think Ari Shavit know as least as much as you. So does Benny Morris. You have no idea what I “know.” And what Ari Shavit “knows” is irrelevant to whether he is right. You may know a great deal and still completely misunderstand the world & reality. Ari Shavit doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does. I’ve eviscerated some of his work here, a post you should read before you try to boast about Shavit’s “knowledge.” As for Benny Morris, he is an even more extreme example. He knows some things & uses those things to come to completely immoral conclusions. WHen you say Morris’ knows things, do you mean that all of his worthwhile past research into the Nakba justifies his advocating using nuclear weapons to bomb Iran, as he did? Or that it justifies expelling ALL the Palestinians from Israel, as he has advocated. “Confirmation bias” is one of those phrases that sounds scientific, but is nothing more than empty jargon to be used in opposition to anything spoken by someone you don’t agree with. The only empirical way to prove someone wrong is by bringing more or better facts & sources to disprove them. You can’t mount sources to disprove my research so you accuse me of confirmation bias. It’s a sad, pathetic ploy. If Israel does something “good”… There is one major good thing Israel can do. It can withdraw to 67 borders, share Jerusalem, recognize Palestine and welcome home the exiles (not just the Jewish ones, you know what I mean…). If it did that I would sing Israel’s praises to the rooftops. I guarantee it. I’d sing it so loud & long that even you would get tired of it & tell me to… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

Yehuda

@Richard:
“The beauty of the religion is that there is no Pope, no central authority determining whether we are a tribe or a light unto the nations. And any Jew who argues as you do for consensus or uniformity will only be disappointed. ”
I agree with these statements and I think you misunderstood me. I certainly am not arguing for uniformity or consensus, or the Orthodox view.
My question is what in your ideology is uniquely Jewish. Jewish diversity is relatively modern, in the past few hundred years, during which Judaism adopted many values from the secular humanist or Christian world (which I’m glad we did). But I wouldn’t call these values specifically Jewish, any more than bagels or black hats are Jewish.

Nope, not goin’ there. I’ve written millions of words here since 2003, many of which express my Jewish identity quite clearly. If you can’t parse my Jewish identity in this blog, then you’re either dense or haven’t done enough reading. I don’t defend or explain my Jewishness to people who question it, deny it, or tell me I need to explain it. It’s there in everything I do and right. I have a blog Category called “Jews & Judaism.” Start there if you must.

“Jewish diversity”is NOT “relatively modern.” Jewish diversity goes back at least to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, if not earlier.

The argument that the Jewish left is “secular” or “humanist,” but not Jewish is one made over decades by those like Meir Kahane and rightist settlers. You sound suspiciously like them, which alarms me.

If you don’t hear the universalist message in Jewish tradition & sacred texts, like I said earlier, you haven’t read enough. Now, like Hillel said: “Go and study.”

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

ToivoS

I find it hard to understand why the Israel lobby in Britain is carrying out this campaign against the left wing of the Labor Party. Let us imagine that they succeed and drive out Corbyn from his leadership. This is going to result in many millions of Britons being very angry at the lobby. Is that what they really want? Is that going to help Israel?

This is similar to Netanyahu coming to the US, joining forces with right Republicans and attacking Obama’s Iranian policies. That act has certainly weakened support for Israel in the US. There is still real anger against American Israel lobby. It hasn’t, yet, led to the critical mass needed to reverse US policy towards Israel but the number of people who want the US to cut its ties to Israel has increased. It is going to happen in England as well.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

David

I think this is right. The display of “Jewish power” — and it is incredible here — will confirm suspicions that “Jews control everything.” There will be blow back but I hope it rises to the level of questioning Israel’s propaganda because it did not in the US, despite Bibi ridiculous show in front o f the Congress.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

2 years ago

Arie Brand

@Yehuda “I know what you know. I think Ari Shavit know as least as much as you. So does Benny Morris.” In my view the debate is really only about Israel in a tangential way. There are more important things at stake here than the fate of that tiny country. The main question is what in the “decent opinion of mankind” is deemed acceptable interpersonal and intergroup behaviour in this day and age. There is, in the West, no lack of consensus about Darfur or I SIS, East Timor (as it was) or Papua. There is about Israel. Zionist apologists, who are exceedingly vocal and numerous, continuously try to shove criteria about acceptable behaviour down our throat that are flagrantly at odds with that “decent opinion” and in this fashion mockingly draw mankind back in its attempt to emerge from barbarity (Neumann). This requires to be argued against and when it is there are complaints about “selective indignation” and “anti-semitism”. We argue against a lowering of standards. The lowering of standards is noticeable in Israel. There is, for instance, a notorious 2004- interview (that originally appeared in Haaretz) by Ari Shavit with Benny Morris (you seemed to mention both those people as guides) in which Morris argued that in 1948 Ben Gurion had not gone far enough in ethnic cleansing and said about Palestinian society among other things this: “ “We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us.” “ “To fence them in? To place them under closure?” “Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that… Read more »

Taking a look at the LBC interview it is clear that this is part of the Witch Hunt and the protagonists don’t even realise it. Livingstone hardly gets a word in edgeways as he’s badgered to ‘apologise.’ He must apologise ‘cos that’s it, that’s what they want. That’s why they have embraced Naz Shah, it’s because she gave them what they wanted. Before he gets another sentence out Livingstone must apologize.
Take a look, also, at the interview with Marr on the Marr show on the BBC.. This is more subjective but I can say I have never seen Marr so vociferous, he may have been at some point but I have never seen it.
It’s a Witch Hunt that is following its own crazy path. It’s a Witch Hunt put into full gear by a Labour leader who is the most socialist we have had in decades. Let me quote his statement from a few days ago:
“Anyone who is ACCUSED of making any antisemitic remarks or antisemitic behaviour is immediately suspended… .”
Solely on the basis of being accused.
This madness is not over. And when the calm eventually comes, we may find that it is not the friends of Israel, or the right of his own party or the right beyond that is his downfall but Mr Corbyn himself.

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

You can adjust all of your cookie settings by navigating the tabs on the left hand side.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.